Sunday, July 31, 2016

This is a rather odd poster: "You know his name,". . . ? What kind of a tagline is that supposed to be? The kind of tagline that says, "Are you concerned about someone breaching your privacy? You've breached his by the very fact that you know his name, therefore, privacy doesn't exist." In other words, that--trust me--you have no personal rights and no right to complain about not having any personal rights, but these "other words" are dare not spoken in the film, That thin beam of light slashing through Bourne's body? We can take that as a metaphor of the film: we will only see about as much meaning in the film as light (which stands for enlightenment) which crosses Bourne's body, while we will be left "in the dark" about the rest of the film's meaning (because the film makers are inherently more intelligent than we are, they believe). What about the gun? There are several anti-2nd Amendment films coming out--not to mention the constant stream of politicians and liberal stars saying how much they hate guns and gun control needs to be enforced--so why is the gun in the light in this poster? The gun is in the light, but the hand holding the gun is in the dark, suggesting that it's okay for him to have a gun because of the people he's going to kill with it, but no one else should have one. Please note, he's also wearing a watch (which I didn't notice him doing in the film). Watches typically signify history, so that it's "in the dark," suggests they are going to talk about a part of thistory that has been kept "in the dark" (like the rotten scandals plaguing the countries where they film) and what they are supporting on the international stage.

It's been well publicized that Matt Damon has only 25 lines in Jason Bourne; the question is, why? It makes it easier for the film makers to not have to say certain things, and still make money, even while they are drawing important lines, cutting the audience off from the hero of the film. Locations are always important to a film, but Jason Bourne makes them particularly important; in connecting the dots between European locations, we realize the true intent of the film, and the meaning of two of the 25 lines Damon has in the film.
Let's start with Iceland.

When Heather Lee tracks down Nicky, she tells Dewey she thinks Nicky will use the Greek protests taking place "as cover," and Heather is wrong about that: Nicky isn't using the protests "as cover," she's using the protests to expose who she really is and what she really believes; she sets the meeting with Bourne in "Constitution Square" because she believes Bourne will care as much as she does, so it's a rude awakening when he doesn't; the files Nicky has found--like all the hacking taking place against the US government and Democratic National Convention--is meant to fuel the kind of protests happening in Greece, not be pushed off to the side and forgotten. Nicky, in other words, has been working all this time; Bourne has been doing nothing but surviving, which, ultimately, is what he tells us to do: just survive and don't do anything else. Now, on a slightly different note, Nicky contacts Bourne by going to a place she finds out where he's fighting; we've seen this before in Guy Ritchie's 2009 Sherlock Holmes when Irene Adler goes to where Holmes is fighting and leaves her card; Nicky leaves a note for Bourne telling him where to meet her; (the guy Bourne fights even looked like Guy Ritchie at first) why would the film makers do this? Revenge. In Sherlock Holmes, who runs the government? Satanists. Blackwood is the worst of the Satanists, but Blackwood's father and the others are all Satanists, too, and Holmes exposes them for being so. Now, it wasn't until Independence Day: Resurgence came out that I realized what Democrats were doing, namely, (and trust me, I know this seems bizarre and insane, but there is just too much evidence piling up for this to be discounted) that Democrats would rather call on Satan to help them keep power and implement socialism in the US and througout the world, than to lose power and see all the damage they have done be un-done (please seeA Controlled Dive: Independence Day for more). REMEMBER, and this is discussed below, Bourne beats up the guy named "Christian" and refuses to join him in exposing government corruption because Bourne isn't on his side. Then, there is also the situation below (in the discussion about Las Vegas) suggesting that Jason Bourne also quotes Godzilla because of the reference to "the devil" which takes place in that film.Now, the question:why does Nicky die? A character only dies if they represent something or do something which the artist (in this case, film makers) find disagreeable or abhorrent, and want it to cease existing; this is the purpose of the conflict in any art work, and different characters will take on different traits to symbolize what the main character is going through and how the hero purges themselves of bad qualities (vices) while enhancing their strong qualities (virtues). There is, in other words, no such thing as an "expendable character:" either a character is seen as virtuous and worth keeping around by the artist(s) or possessing some vice and therefore, that character needs to be killed off in order for the hero to be successful (yes, there are times when the hero isn't quite yet strong enough to kill off a vice within themselves, and those are called "sequels"). In the case of Nicky, if the film makers had seen her as being virtuous and good, they would have saved her, but what does one of the CIA operatives say when they are tracking her? She's by "the statue of Athena," and that is the big bombshell of why she dies: Athena symbolizes law and order, justice and wisdom, all things we have seen clearly absent in the Obama administration; Nicky being by the statue of Athena symbolizes that Nicky, too, wants these things (as she is being chased by these government officials trying to unlawfully kill her, she is drawn to a symbol of order and justice, Athena [no, this isn't a pagan reference, it's cultural because they are in Athens] but The Asset will get her regardless because these are the days of lawlessness. The same Democrats who allowed a a satanic statue by The Satanic Temple in Detroit, would tear down a statue of Athena, just as statues of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Marx have been torn down by capitalists in the past.

Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) has been in hiding in Iceland, researching what the CIA has been doing; hacking into their system, she discovers they are planning an even worse operations than the Treadstone program Bourne was trained for; she then goes to Greece; she leaves Bourne a note telling him to meet her at Syntagma Square as a political protest gets under way. When Nicky tells Bourne what is happening, he replies that he doesn't care anymore and all he wants is to stay off the grid and survive; a few minutes later, Nicky is shot dead (which means she has always been "dead" in the film, and now they are delivering their thesis about why she is "dead" and it's because Nicky is like people trying to expose Hillary Clinton over Benghazi and leaked emails, and the film makers of Jason Bourne "aren't on our side" as Bourne himself later says). This is everything we need to know about what this film is about.

In this scene, outside of Athens, close to the Greek-Albanian border (that's important, we'll deal with it in a moment), Bourne engages in an illegal fight, which is why they have to go outside the city, and he fights a Russian, Vassily; Bourne deals a death blow to the Russian with one hit; why? Russia turned away from communism to capitalism. Why? Communism didn't work; this is supposed to be a show of power by liberals that their man Bourne is better than Russia and can put Russia in its place, on the ground. Now, where are they in this scene? Close to the Albanian border; why? Albania provides universal healthcare and free education to its citizens, so this opening scene is supposed to invoke the stability of Albania in wake of the instability of Greece. So, if Jason Bourne is so liberal, why do we have a white, heterosexual (he's been in male-female relationships as far as we know) male as the hero? Because he's weak. If you can't get rid of all the white men, at least show them as being liberal, or at least weak and barely effectual. Given Bourne's body count in this latest film, you might argue he's hardly "ineffectual," but the truth is, what he does in the film doesn't make a difference, not really, not to himself or anyone else. He get's vengeance for his father's death, that his father really invited upon himself, big deal. Jason Bourne doesn't do anything else, he doesn't make a difference, and his life is still the same afterwards as it was before. That's propaganda, subtle, yes, but still propaganda, and one of the reasons why the film isn't impressive: in America, we believe one person can make a difference; we believe that, individually and as a culture. This film doesn't. At one point in the film, we see Bourne in the bathroom, washing his face with water in the sink and looking at himself in the mirror; a few scenes later, we see his nemesis, The Asset, do the exact same thing; why? Neither man likes what they see, but neither man changes the way they are. Why not? The film wants us to believe that we don't really have free choice. When Bourne comes face to face with Dewey at the end, Dewey tells him that he was never "David Webb," he was always "Jason Bourne," and with 32 kills, that's what he is, a killer. Jason Bourne can't be changed, he can't be "born again," and, by the end of the film, he doesn't want to.

What about the other locations in the film, like London and Berlin? Both major European cities have also been rocked by huge demonstrations, in London there have been the protests leading up to the Brexit vote, and Berlin is one of several cities protesting against the massive influx of Middle Eastern refugees into the country; how are all these cities' protests related? All these protests reveal aspects of the Cloward-Piven Strategy maneuvering into these political systems. In 1966, two American sociologists, Cloward and Piven, came up with a means of putting America on the "tipping point" (a phrase that comes up in Jason Bourne) by overloading the American welfare system so there would be a crisis, thereby, mandating socialism and ending poverty,.... or something. So, in Iceland, Greece, London, Berlin and America, we have seen our budgets and GDPs strained beyond compare through various means: immigration and those entering the countries from the outside being supported by those natives and using up all the resources, as well as the accumulations of massive debts, also in the case of each of these countries, especially Iceland, Greece and America. So each of these countries are at the tipping points of going from healthy, prosperous and just, to devastated and lawless, which leads us to Las Vegas. Why is there such a huge chase scene in Vegas? Revenge against the film Godzilla. In Godzilla, the Elvis Presley song, Devil In Disguise plays in Las Vegas, and at that point, The Bible mini-series had been going on; it caused a controversy because the actor portraying the devil was made-up to look like Barack Hussein Obama (please see Erasure & Time: Godzillafor more). There have been a number of other films which have also linked liberals to the devil, including The Conjuring 2, Warcraft and Independence Day. For further proof, consider how the original version of The Manchurian Candidate (1962) was "quoted" at the Las Vegas convention with The Asset getting up high in the vent to assassinate both Aaron and Heather on stage; why would Jason Bourne quote The Manchurian Candidate (the original version, not the one with Denzel Washington)? Revenge. This is re-writing history to show that Americans are the real terrorists in the world, not communists.

Having come from a country where all the major political figures had been ousted over government scandals and "lack of accountability" (Iceland), then has a meeting during a massive, violent political protest in a country (Greece) trying to do the same political cleansing and then she's dead just moments later, means Nicky Parsons is, ultimately, THE VILLAIN OF JASON BOURNE. Yes, former-girlfriend who wants to expose the nasty business of the corrupt CIA and save Americans from making the same mistakes as Bourne did, is dead; no, not because she's "an expendable character" (how long have they been dragging her through these movies [remember, her code name was "Sparrow?" THAT was a long time ago] only to kill her at the start, instead of Robert Dewey [Tommy Lee Jones] and Heather Lee [Alicia Vikander] wanting to bring Nicky back into the CIA with Bourne? No, this was well-thought-out). Why is she the villain? Because Nicky doesn't want the government being able to do things that are unlawful for it to do (remember, she meets Bourne in "Constitution Square"). What is Jason Bourne's response?
I don't care.
And there's more proof.

Aaron, on the left, has opened up some kind of digital platform called Deep Dream, and it's kind of like Facebook; Aaron took money from the CIA to start up the company and in exchange, the CIA is able to track everyone's everything, EVERYTHING by EVERYONE. When Aaron learns that Nicky hacked the CIA, Aaron fears word will get out that he's allowing the CIA to monitor and spy on his customers through his agreement with them so Aaron backs out and tells Dewey (right) that he's not going to do this anymore; Dewey responds with a Sherman Act anti-trust lawsuit; so Aaron agrees to speak at the Las Vegas convention and attempts to expose the CIA there, but is nearly assassinated by the Asset. What's the point of all this? That's a pretty good question, because it seems to be saying that, in the name of "public safety" personal "privacy" and "rights" don't exist. Jason Bourne mentions Edward Snowden, the former NSA worker who leaked thousands of government documents revealing the massive extent of the government spying on its own citizens and, Aaron, then, is ready to denounce the CIA. So, since Aaron is nearly killed, at the moment he's ready to reveal the incredible power the CIA has with his platform, we can quickly deduce that business exists to serve the government, that Google, Yahoo, Snapchat, Instagram, etc., are all spying on you and me and there is nothing we can do about it AND the film makers of Jason Bourne agree with it; they do not support traditional American values of the privacy of the individual (please see the discussion below on Beirut and how the film targets America as the terrorists instead of the terrorists). Remember, in this discussion taking place above, Dewey tells Aaron that Aaron has to be accountable to the government, the government doesn't have to be accountable to businesses, individuals or itself. Now, here is a perfect example of deconstruction, that is, the film creating a value that it then unravels through its own (poor) logic: Dewey talks about public safety and the need to maintain it, but then there are all these examples of when there is NO public safety; the CIA can't protect anyone--not even themselves--from anything, in spite of all the spying they are doing; sound familiar? Like Obama's administration spying on us all the time and yet never knowing anything or being able to stop terrorist acts.

Remember, Damon has only 25 lines in this film, but he only needs 2 lines. Bourne tracks down Christian Dassault who helped Nicky hack the CIA so Christian can open the files for Bourne (the files are encrypted and infected with malware). As Bourne goes through the files, files about the CIA's massive corruption and unlawful activities, that Nicky gave her life for (and they have just mentioned Nicky), Christian asks Bourne to join him in fighting corrupt institutions, and listen to what Bourne says:

"I'm not on your side."
Christian, who is most assuredly named so as a "target" against Christians, IS THE RAY OF LIGHT IN THE FILM SHINING ON JASON BOURNE and what he has become: a socialist. He's not a patriot, as Heather Lee tells him later in the film, he's a zombie (he doesn't reflect on what is happening in the world or to himself, he's apathetic), and he's happy to stay that way. Why does Christian throw the weights at him? One, because the film makers realize this is a "weighty matter," and two because they recognize the strength behind Christians--not only our numbers but the morality and historical accuracy of our arguments--ultimately, however, the film makers don't give a damn about anyone or anything except getting their food stamps, paid education and free healthcare. So that's the argument, but then there is the insult added to the injury: Beirut.

So, Dewey dies, but Bourne doesn't kill him because of the corruption, or because of the evil of Ironhand to spy on every person in this country, no, no no: Bourne kills Dewey because Dewey had his father killed. Bourne doesn't care a bit about the spying or what is being done with that information--in fact, he probably wants more of it given everything that happens in the film--and that's a failure of the hero in this film and why it's so unsatisfying. The Asset dies because he triggered the bomb that killed Bourne's dad, but that's all; nothing about the torturing The Asset has helped or the people he's executed; in other words, there is only a very poor and pathetic sense of justice at all in the film, and given the millions of dollars in damage Bourne's personal vendetta causes, Bourne should probably be arrested and imprisoned.

For anyone who was alive and old enough to understand what was going on during the Cold War, "Beirut" was a by-word for everything wrong with the world, a synonym for "terrorism" and "chaos," the original, "Death to America" movement before there was a "Death to America" movement. Part of the "conflict" of the film, is that Bourne's father was killed in Beirut, and Bourne was told he was killed by terrorists; in his flashbacks, Bourne sees his dad killed in a burning car, and all these Lebanese people standing around looking like modern tourists and who killed Bourne's dad? The Asset, an American. In other words, as liberals have been saying, America is the world's leader in terrorism, not the countries and suicide bombers of the Middle East.

What happens in this scene? Who cares? Sure, Heather gets exposed by Bourne, but what really happens is the loose throwing around of the word "patriot." Before Obama came to office, "patriot" meant someone who would defend the Constitution, respect the law and honor the flag and traditions of this country; now, "patriot" is synonymous with "traitor," in other words, if you still adhere to the regular definition of patriot, then you are a traitor; if you are a traitor by the traditional standards, then you are considered a patriot. Bourne isn't a patriot, not by today's standards; ten years ago, he would be considered a hero for what happened to him and what he did to expose the corruption in government, but today, he's aiding it.

At the end of The Bourne Ultimatum, we the audience were confident the bad guys in government would be punished and the agency cleaned up of its corruption; in The Bourne Legacy, with Jeremy Renner starring as Treadstone agent Aaron Cross, we saw that the corruption in government was going to be rewarded, and the whistle blowers were fighting for their lives; in spite of that, we still had an ending consistent with traditional American values, a film with which the audience could identity as American and heroic (please see All Points Of Convergence: The Bourne Legacy for more). In Jason Bourne, we see none of those things, except that corruption wins the day, and no one is going to do anything about it, and neither should we. If you want to understand who is going to vote for Hillary Clinton in spite of the outrageous scandals she has caused throughout her lifetime, the film makers of Jason Bourne don't help you to understand, but want you to understand that they will vote for her, and do everything they can to make sure Clinton, or any other Democrat/socialist/communist is ever held accountable for anything.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Friday, July 29, 2016

The first released poster for The Mummy starring Tom Cruise, It's funny because the guy who wrote the article updating some news is under the impression that Sofia Boutella's queen mummy is going to join Dracula and Van Helsing; it's my understanding that Tom Cruise, who gets enhanced powers through accidentally discovering the queen mummy's tomb, is the one who will end up with Dracula (Luke Evans) and Van Helsing,.. Oh, yea, they are working on the Van Helsing film, and the guy who wrote the screenplay for Ridley Scott's Prometheus is doing it (which I loved!). He told reporters that, at this time, he was told to go write the best film he could and then they would work on bringing them all together. We know Russell Crowe is doing The Mummy with Cruise, and Crows plays Dr. Jeckyll; we also know Johnny Depp has been confirmed for the role of The Invisible Man, Javier Bardem is either Dr. Frankenstein or Frankenstein's monster, and Angelina Jolie in Bride Of Frankenstein. It appears that Lionsgate Studio is also getting ready to release a version of Dr Jeckyll. So, this is an awesome line-up of excellent film makers taking on fantastic subjects that is going to be totally cool! I, literally, can't wait.

It's so sneaky, it's really sly about what it wants to say, but it comes out, and it's a horrible blow to groups like the Tea Party in the US, Direct Democracy Now! for Greece and the political reforms in Iceland. The movie isn't particularly good, and knowing you are having socialist propaganda dressed up in traditional values (words like "patriot," "public safety" and "privacy" get thrown around a lot in the film) shoved down your throat makes it even longer and more difficult to get through. I am working on the post now and will get it up late tonight.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

So, how did Star Trek Beyond do after they revealed that Sulu was gay? Not good. Let's look at the numbers: in 2009, when Star Trek, the first in the series came out (with a new cast that had no TV following) $75.2 million, and Star Trek Into Darkness got $70.2 million (that doesn't seem right; I am pretty confident they were expecting $100 million and that it came in at $85, I could be wrong, but I think these numbers are too low) and Star Trek Beyond pulled in $59.3, the lowest of the three films. Why? It is possible that the loss of JJ Abrams directing had an effect on film-goers, but I think it was the publicized decision to make Sulu gay (in spite of them cutting out the gay kiss scene from the film). So, even with their low-expectations for opening, the film didn't even manage a full $60 million, and while it's not a bomb, it's certainly not a success. There are (at least) two reasons why liberals would want to sabotage Star Trek: first, the crew is predominantly white and male,not to mention the captain, James Kirk, is white and male and, traditionally, highly individualistic, meaning, worthy-of-the-wrath-of-liberals. So, as we saw in The Conjuring 2: the Enfield Poltergeist, white men have been demonized by the current political administration, not just nationally, but internationally as well. So that's the first reason liberals would want Star Trek to perform poorly; the second reason is that Star Trek is iconic, totally iconic, and the anthem of America's presence in space and, prior to 2008, commitment to space exploration. We've previously discussed how space films are like Westerns, and nothing says America like the old West (which is probably what the remake of The Magnificent Seven is going after; my mom pointed out that the villain in the original American re-make was a Mexican, so changing the Denzel Washington-Chris Pratt collaboration to an industrialist clearly signifies they were afraid of offending the Mexicans; this doesn't straight out mean it's going to be pro-socialist, but there are a lot of factors adding up on the liberal side of the tally sheet). So, in attacking traditional American icons, like The Lone Ranger, Marvel comic book heroes and The Legend Of Tarzan, liberals erode the history of identity for American culture, we are robbed of those qualities which those characters embody and represent: leadership, courage, morality and justice. This is exactly what liberals want.

Opening this weekend is Jason Bourne (Matt Damon); we haven't really discussed it. Prior to Ridley Scott's The Martian, Damon had become a box office bomb, so when it was announced he was doing another Bourne film (in spite of definitive statements that he wouldn't return to the Bourne character) it was obvious that he was re-visiting his last success and trying to capitalize on that once more (which, given what a socialist he is, is ironic, to say the least). And of course, Jeremy Renner and fans got screwed out of the follow-up to The Bourne Legacy which was excellent. Here is a compilation of the trailers/clips which have been released, and when it comes down to it, there are basically two lines I am concerned about going into the film:

The first is when asked what his purpose is in the city and he responds, "Business," and the second is, when he says he volunteered based on a lie that his father had been killed by terrorists. Knowing that liberals are using terrorism to re-direct attention back to issues like the environment and Black Lives Matter, that Jason Bourne appears to not be taking on terrorism, but blaming "business" and the basic structure of America for what happened (and I'm not saying he wasn't manipulated, but it's also the film makers creating the scenario to fit in their agenda, whatever that agenda may or may not be). I'm going to see it Friday and will get the post up asap. This first trailer will most likely be a pro-socialist film, however, it perfectly illustrates what is happening and what I have been writing that is happening:

The opening scene is very much small-town America: a mom-and-pop store with a post office, the American flag, a quiet day,... and now, a home-grown terrorist attack. We won't say Dakota Fanning's character has a perfect life, but growing up on a farm and having her needs supplied for is a nice, comfortable life. She still grows up to hate this country and her family. The film looks interesting, but it might be insufferable, but it highlights what is happening: the kids who were given such a good life are not revolting against it. A few weeks ago, I mentioned that I thought the remake of Ben-Hur was going to be pro-socialist; they have released the third trailer for the film:

This is actually quite serious.
At 0:36, Morgan Freeman's character says, "It will start a revolution that will free us all." This is basically being set up like The Hunger Games (the first film), and that's not such a big deal, but what is an enormous deal is the presence of Jesus in the film. Now, like Warcraft and Ghostbusters, it's possible that there are elements in the film which is going to sway the outcome, and I am keeping that in mind; what's at stake is Ben-Hur turning into Judas Iscariot and the filmmakers twisting Christianity into a political message rather than the religious and spiritual message Christ came to share; remember, Judas wanted Jesus to start a political revolution, and Judas was willing to betray Christ to start that revolution, thinking Jesus would use His powers to save Himself so He would be crowned king and Israel would be free of Rome; that's kind of how I am thinking this is going to go, and there is a serious consequence for it.

So, Sherlock Holmes 3 IS HAPPENING. Producers are set and the production schedule is getting worked out, rumored to begin this fall. RDJ and Jude Law are both returning, as is director/writer Guy Ritchie. On a different note, Thor 3: Ragnarok is in production (just ended like the first week) and it boasts Cate Blanchett and Jeff Goldblum in the film, as well as the return of Chris Hemsworth, Mark Ruffalo (who is said to be playing two roles in the film,...) and Tom Hiddleston who has said this is his last Marvel film,... oh, that is so sad :( . During Comi-Con, which happened this weekend, footage from both Spider Man Homecoming and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 was shown, but has not made its way online; if it goes up, I will be sure to post it.

If you will recall, in our discussion for Independence Day: Resurgence, the symbol used throughout the film for the help the humans received looked nearly identical to a symbol used for the devil in the film Devil's Due, and I laid out groundwork suggesting other films, both pro-capitalist and pro-socialist, which made the case that socialists were, indeed, invoking the devil to help them establish socialism in the country and world (no, it actually does NOT matter what you think about the existence of the devil or demons or any principality of the spiritual realm; what matters is that this is the vocabulary being employed by BOTH SIDES to demonstrate what the socialists are doing or at least willing to do). IF Ben-Hur is a pro-socialist film (and I am not saying that it is, I will go see it) but IF it is, it seems that the character of Judah Ben-Hur would be a Judas figure--willing to betray Christ and His Teachings (depending on how they are represented by these film makers)--for the revolution spoken of by Morgan Freeman's character to free them from the rule of Rome. But the attack on Christianity is going to have a full season of TV; spot the anti-Republican themes in this trailer:

Wow. Liberal propaganda certainly has a direct audience with a low intellect. Do you remember that film Noah? That film Noah with Russell Crowe? The Noah film where Noah ate moss and tried teaching his sons, and us the viewers, that those who hunted animals and ate meat did so because "They think it makes them stronger?"

Well, well, well,....
That's really all I am going to say about it, except this, I am going to say this: I told you so. I told you socialists were trying to get control over what we eat and if this trailer doesn't communicate that, I don't know what will. On a not-so-different-note, is Level Up:

When do we "level up" and have to do more than what we just did? Video games are a good example, but capitalism in general is also acceptable, because no matter how good a product/company/employee is, if they stay stagnant and don't "level up" what they are doing, they are going to lose their share of the market, just as Matt is going to lose Anna. Now, back to that discussion above about liberals and Satan,...:

Absolutely, this is totally an invocation of Hitchcock's Psycho, but there is a good reason for it. But we would have to do a post on Psycho, maybe I can get that done in October. BUT, this looks good. On another dark note: SALEM Season 3 is here, and if the trailer above for The Good Place put conservatives in hell, Season 3 of SALEM will show how liberals have made earth their hell:

"Our god, their devil, is alive and is here," says the man holding the snake; so, whether you call him "Satan," "Demon," "the Beast," or "the devil," it's all the same and it's all being attributed to the Left. So, what is being said about SALEM in the trailer, is what can actually be said about America today. Now, here is a bit of homework for you:

This is the trailer I want you to analyze and think about and I will post on it tomorrow, agreed :) ? The house symbolizes the soul, what does darkness symbolize? You can do this. Now, let's end on a lighter note, shall we?

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

A history film is never, ever, never, ever, never, ever, never EVER about history; it is ALWAYS about the here and the now because we aren't interested in history (I was a history major, among other things, this is true, trust me) we are interested in ourselves and how we can see ourselves through historical events. There are two parts to this title: King Arthur. It's a name everyone knows, it's a name that means justice and hops. It's a name of an exceptional individual. The second part of the title is, "Legend Of the Sword." The sword, and I don't know if they will call it by its name or not, but traditionally, Excalibur, is a material object (which socialists hate) and it's the sword of a kind and a sword that is exceptional itself. We can even say there is a third part to this title: "Legend." Why "legend?" because there is history in a legend, there is also wisdom and cultural identification in a legend, that is, the values a culture has traditionally embraced and recognized itself as (and distinguished itself apart from other peoples and cultures) is contained in legends, so, in a way, legends transcend history, because the historical fact is important, but the sociological record of legends is beyond value. If you stop the trailer below at 0:40, where Arthur says, "And they all lived happily ever after," you will notice a scar on his neck, going down from his right ear, and a scar on his forehead, above the eyebrow; why? The neck symbolizes that which "leads us" in life, and if there is anything on or around a person's neck, it reveals what is or has led them to where they are now. In the case of Arthur, the scar indicates that his past pain, or bad experiences has led him to become what he is up to that point; why is this important? Because the sword (I'm going to call it "Excalibur" but that doesn't mean Ritchie does) is what will lead him--or, at least, try to lead him--once it has been pulled from the stone, and that's an polarization Ritchie wants to draw our attention to: are the negative forces in our lives leading us (the scars) or are stronger, positive forces leading us (the sword)? What about the scar on his face? There are three different ways we can interpret facial scars: first, that the scar is just "on the face," as opposed to a specific location; this ambiguity means that the person's identity has wounded and either the person or the person(s) with whom they are in contact, don't really know who they are; depending on the scar, it can even suggest poisoning in who or what the person thinks they are (but we have no reason to suspect this about Arthur at this point). The second possibility for this scar is that it's above the eye (since it echoes the arch of the eyebrow) and can be seen as a part of Arthur's eye. Eyes are the windows of the soul, and so for Arthur to have a scar over his eye suggests that his ability to see has been wounded: either he's a poor judge of character--he might, for example, meet Guinevere and not realize what she is really capable of--or Vortigren (Jude Law) and Arthur might underestimate Vortigren because Arthur's sight has been wounded. This would make for an interesting interpretation because there are two examples in this short trailer of Arthur "seeing": the first is when he awakens from his nightmare (since dreams are the mind's way of communicating to us what is really happening or even what might happen) and, secondly, when Arthur takes the sword and he sees bits of what is going to happen as a result of him pulling the sword from the stone (there is also the "seeing" which comes from the line we hear being spoken by a man, "You wanted a prophecy? Here is your prophecy," since prophets are oftentimes also referred to as "seers" because they can "see" into the future and the hearts of men). The third possibility for this scar above Arthur's eyebrow is that it's part of his forehead, which would mean that Arthur has a problem with his thought processes: he might be street-smart, but not diplomatic, for example, or he might not be able to analyse situations the way he should (such as when he says, "There is an army of you," and he insists he's not going to fight, and then he goes ahead and fights in spite of the overwhelming odds against him). So, why are these scars important? For at least two reasons. First, because they communicate to the audience without Ritchie having to tell us what to think about Arthur: Ritchie's showing us what he wants us to know; this marginalized vocabulary--visual clues audiences rarely pick up on and engage with--are essential to artists even though most go unrecognized by the viewer. For example, when the "narrator" we see tells Arthur to tell him everything, and we see him speaking to Arthur about his dream, the man is blinking,... like a lot, like he has something in his eye: this is a form of "blindness." In other words, this man is a figure of us, the audience, because we are going to be "blinded" by some of the details, even as we are wanting to know those very details, we aren't going to understand them or miss them completely. So, why put that into a film? Because, dear reader, you and I aren't going to miss them; rather, our interpretation would be validated because such moments like this are included within the film and we can recognize them, so Ritchie is basically congratulating us and frowning upon the rest. Secondly, look at the people in the trailer at 1:56: they wear masks over their faces. We have seen these "guards" several times, like in Mission Impossible 5 Rogue Nation with the guys on motorcycle wearing their helmets and the Storm Troopers in Star Wars: the Force Awakens. When someone wears a mask, it can indicate a loss of identity, that they have ceased functioning as an individual; Arthur's facial scars are singular to Arthur, only he has those exact scars from those exact life circumstances that caused them, and so they contribute to Arthur's individuality, regardless of how painful the cause of them might have been, In essence, while the cause of the scars was meant to hurt Arthur, they have made him stronger and made him Arthur.

So, a few of you have written--thank you very much!--and inquired about Guy Ritchie's King Arthur: Legend of the Sword and why I think it's going to be so good. Fair enough. Let's go through this carefully, and, if you are wondering about that song playing in the background, it's Sam Lee, Wild Wild Berry:

Please, keep in mind I am still sick, so I won't go ad infinitum like I sometimes do. The very first image is of a river, but it's not just any river, it's the Thames, which flows through London; then we see some young, not-so-upstanding men running, suggesting they are going to be caught. They dive off a cliff and into (more) water. This probably isn't how the film actually begins (well, maybe) but we don't know but we also don't need to know: what are the elements of narration we are seeing? Water, trouble, more water. We know from the title cards we see, "Born to be king," that the initial water (the Thames) is a sign of the "grace" from which Arthur was born--we don't know how director Guy Ritchie is going to handle the actual birth of Arthur, but that's rather immaterial--then, the running with his friends demonstrates that Arthur is, one of the many, a member of the herd (even if he be the leader of that herd) and he will have to be "re-baptized" (the jumping into the water) in order to seize hold of his destiny.
Then, enters the narrator.

Why is there a "sword in the stone" at all? The great sin of lust. Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana in this version) is Arthur's father. According to legend--but not necessarily what Ritchie is going to do--Uther becomes lustful for the wife of Gorlois, Igraine, and wants her for himself. The situation has two symbolic levels. First, Uther covets the wife of another man, and this sin of adultery--which traditionally embraces Guinevere and Lancelot as well--brings down a king (one is reminded of King David and Bathsheba). The sword in the stone, then, symbolizes the sexual act: the sword (phallic symbol) between the man's legs, entering into the mound (the "delta of Venus" as the vagina has been called) and Uther doing this to protect his son's claim to his throne works for two reasons. First, Uther has this moment of humility in recognizing that his downfall and the loss of his kingdom (the darkness falling over England which Arthur will have to fight against) was caused by Uther's lust; secondly, Uther's lying with Igraine is the king taking from his vassal. The sexual is all one level; another level is the geo-political. Igraine is not a woman, per se, rather, she symbolizes all of England, Ireland, Scotland, etc., because she is the "motherland" which gives birth to us. Women who are of child-bearing age symbolize that land which gave birth to us; Uther lusted for power and domination over the English realm, and the sword was Uther's capability of obtaining that power and land as king. In this interpretation, Uther would have placed the sword, Excalibur being the power to the right to rule the kingdom, into the stone because a stone is barren, it doesn't give life, and neither did the reign of Uther, so Uther's action in putting the sword into the stone is that of saying, "To the one who can use the sword, not to bring death, but life, I bequeath unto you the right to rule," and in this interpretation, the biological father of Arthur is irrelevant, it's that Uther Pendragon is the "political father" or even a spiritual father to Arthur and Arthur is his son by virtue of following in those footsteps,... just not too closely. THEN, there is the reason of why the British ever had a sword in the stone for their central identity origin: something about Arthur's struggle is quintessentially British, not only when the story was born, but for every generation to which it has been passed and continues to pass down the tale of the central characters. So Ritchie is going back, way way way back to the original to try and understand how and why Arthur embodies Britain and what the people then were going through that we can take in for today. There are two important modern references for Ritchie's film: in The Minions movie, Bob the minion pulls the sword from the stone and becomes "King Bob." In Batman vs Superman: Dawn Of Justice, young Bruce Wayne leaves the theater with his parents after having seen Excalibur (which was full of nudity, so Mr and Mrs Wayne didn't actually take Bruce to see it, we are supposed to understand Excalibur as a setting for what was going on then and the Waynes were a part of it: the Reagan years and the abundance of money in America at the time being like a Camelot when the rest of the world seemed wrapped in the darkness of communism). So, without us even knowing anymore about the film than we do from this trailer, we know all ready that Ritchie aligns it with the lessons and positions being communicated to us in both The Minions and Batman vs Superman.

He isn't really a narrator, however, he's narrating what our thoughts as the viewers our: tell me the story, tell me every single detail of the story, and remember, I've seen the Walt Disney Sword In the Stone and (possibly) Excalibur (1981). Very few will have read The Legends Of King Arthur and His Knights (free e-book download) from which Ritchie will undoubtedly draw a good deal of material. So, as we see Arthur detailing what happened to him, and the "narrator" correcting him and telling him he left something out, that is actually what we, the viewers, will be doing as we watch the film: correcting Ritchie and telling him what he should have done or should not have done. And now, it's going to get really good.

It's inevitable to compare Jude Law's King Vortigern to Ravenna (Charlize Theron) in Snow White and the Huntsman: both monarchs usurped the throne and their power through the killing of the parents of the rightful heir, Arthur in Vortigern's case, and of course, Snow White in the case of Ravenna. Not only do both Ravenna and Vortigern have magical powers, which they use to maintain worldly power of the throne, they have similar crowns, notably, neither crown has any jewels in it. Why is that important? Jewels symbolize virtue, and virtue symbolizes the reason God chose that person to rule (or the virtues God endowed that ruler with so they would be a good ruler); rubies, then, mean love of their people while emeralds being green would be the hope of a good and peaceful life for the kingdom. For Ravenna and Vortigern, their crowns are made of metals, forged by fire and strength, so their right to rule is that they had the power and means to take the thrones, not that they have any virtue or quality apart from strength and willing to do what must be done to keep power. (Oops, when I watched it again, there is a jewel in what appears to be the dragon's belly on Vortigern's crown; how do we interpret what a dragon's belly means? Do you recall a little film called The Hobbit: the Desolation Of Smaug, and the treasure Smaug guarded over? An appetite for riches is probably a good place for us to start). When Arthur rides up to Vortigern's castle, a guard introduces Arthur, "Behold, he who pulled sword from stone," and that's meant to be an insult, because Vortigern has the right to rule through the stratagems that put him on the throne, whereas Arthur is claiming the right to rule because he has been chosen, divinely. Hence, it's not just a matter of an earthly throne over which Arthur fights Vortigern, rather, God's right to rule over earth (and there definitely is some satanic force at work in the trailer, and Vortigern obviously serves that evil).

"I woke up."
"From where?"
"From a nightmare."
"What was it about?"
Actually, just, "I woke up," can itself be the real turning point, because even today, that has significance. For example, in the film Divergent, Tris (Shailene Wooley) tells people to, "Wake up!" because they have been induced into an obedient trance to do the will of the state (Joby Harold, one of the three screenwriters, penned a film called Awake, as well as the Tom Cruise film, Edge Of Tomorrow, where he wakes up each day); the trailer for Star Wars VIII had a voice speaking about the Force, "There's been an awakening, have you felt it?" and it's also a popular political saying nowadays, "Wake up, America!" in realizing the state of the union and what is happening, and then there is the premise of the film Passengers with Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence in that they are sent into space and wake up from their hibernation ninety years before the others do, because that is a political film; in the trailer for London Town, Joe Strummer (Jonathan Rhys Meyer) says (at 1:04), "Wake up! Wake the bloody hell up people!" . Arthur saying, "I woke up," might mean that he has realized how he is living his life and wants to make a change, that he is not only going to get himself killed, but he's called to something better and greater. When the character (that I have been calling "the narrator" because he has served that function in the trailer) known as "Jack's Eye" (Michael McElhatton) asks Arthur, "From where?" the full sentence is, 'From where have you awoken?" being, what previous state where you in that caused you to awaken? We don't know the real answer to this until we see the film, however, Arthur gives us his interpretation of that state as being, "From a nightmare."This is the golden nugget.

Who is she? I am going to assume she is crouched down and does not have a hand growing from her throat. Originally, Astrid Berges-Frisbey was cast as Guinevere, but she is now billed as "Mage," which is singular for Magi, a person who has studied and learned magic and spells. This doesn't mean she still isn't Guinevere, however, it might be that she is the character traditionally known as Morgan Le Fay, the half-sister of Arthur and mother of Mordred, Arthur's son (uh, yea). This is just speculation on my part, there are lots of "Mage" listings on the casting sheet. A case in point is Djimon Hounsou who was originally cast as Merlin, but then re-cast as Arthur's mentor Sir Bedivere (for no known given reason). We can say that whoever and whatever Guinevere is, that is what Ritchie wants us to understand as being England's state today. If you stop the trailer at 0:26, you can get a good look at her: she has yellow eyes, the color of an animal, and serious bags under those eyes; she's pale, but her lips are dry, nearly cracked, so she looks sick. The yellow eyes readily suggests (but doesn't necessarily mean) she has the soul of an animal, and has given herself over to some evil. Why? Yellow is the color of gold, and gold always denotes kings (as in Arthur): either a king is good and he has a soul of gold, or a king is bad and takes from his vassals (like Uther taking Igraine from her husband and Vortigern taking the throne from Arthur) and doesn't do his own fighting (yellow and cowardly, a good king is one who is capable of fighting and winning). In the case of yellow eyes, she has, possibly, abandoned her dignity as a human being (we are the children of God, and that separates us from the animals, so we have an inherent, divine and royal dignity to each of us). Now, let's say she's a good character (and this is supposed to be a trilogy, so she might start out good and then turn to the Dark Side) the yellow eyes might mean an abundance of dignity, she is very in-touch with her dignity and she sees the dignity in others: for example, she might realize what Arthur is capable of when no one else does, even himself. Please note the blue cape she wears: blue, as we know, means both wisdom and sadness because the price for obtaining wisdom is our sorrow, so either she has an abundance of wisdom, or an abundance of sorrow to which she holds so tightly she can't gain wisdom from it.

The "nightmare," whether it be personal or political, is a statement of duality; why? Psychoanalysis, baby. Either Arthur had been living in a nightmare--be that the political state of affairs, or the personal state due to bad choices Arthur had made (when we see Arthur fighting another man in the trailer above, that's also an image of the fighting going on within Arthur and how he's struggling against himself)--so whatever is in the nightmare is a part of Arthur's own being; how? When we have dreams, good or bad, our unconscious utilizes those things which are all ready within us to tell us about what is all ready happening within us; in other words, the psyche encodes a message so it can tell us something. Arthur's deeper self has been trying to tell him something, and it's important for us, the viewers to know this, because a dream/nightmare isn't just for a character, it's for us: namely, it's an encoded message the film makers' want us to understand.
And that message is,...

Oh, this will be a difficult moment. No idea, obviously, what part of the film this takes place, but that mud reveals the state of sin/lack of grace within Arthur's soul. We know Arthur was raised "on the streets," and it has even been rumored he was raised in a brothel, so the question is (rather like the film Amadeus about the gifted Mozart) how can God grant so much to someone who deserves it to little? Does Arthur deserve to be king? Maybe not. This is where the great theme of the film will come into play: the conflict of free will and fate/destiny. As you listen to the trailer, there are quips about writing a book, not having a manual, you know what comes next, suggesting that everything is written and they are just acting out what has been pre-determined from the dawn of time. At the moment when Arthur's hand touches the sword, Arthur knows something is about to happen, and he goes ahead and grasps the sword anyway and pulls it out. THAT is an act of free will: when those images flash before his eyes, that is God letting Arthur know all that is going to befall him, but Arthur accepts it, because even though God all ready knows what we will choose, it is still our free will to choose it. At 2:03, we see Arthur taking Excalibur and throwing it (possibly into a lake); this isn't a break-down of Arthur's will, it's the re-establishment of it. Arthur then takes the sword for a second time (we don't have to see the film to determine that, even though we will have to see the film to know what the circumstances are for him throwing it and then taking it back up). Arthur is chosen because Arthur is the only one who will make the choices that need to be made; for example, when, around 1:44, Arthur says, "There is no way I am fighting," and then we know he goes ahead and fights, only Arthur would have made that decision, and that's why he was chosen: not an abundance of virtue, or a serious lack of vice, rather, the daring, the bravado and faith to commit the bold acts which needed to be made (at 0:12, when he jumps off the cliff, that is a "leap of faith" he makes, showing he is capable of it).
On a different note, at one point in the trailer, we hear Vortigern saying, "I know what kind of a man you are," and that's the kind of thing the devil says to us: I know what dark and evil sins lurk within you, but God knows what potential we have and is ready to be tapped at the right moment; Arthur isn't the kind of man Vortigern sees Arthur as being (probably the kind of man who grew up on the streets in a brothel, and not much else) but nonetheless, God knows the inner-strength Arthur has, even though Arthur doesn't know it himself.

... buy a ticket.
We won't know until we see the film in its entirety, but we can pick-up on the key points and devices which will be employed to communicate to us how to watch the film. Given that so many are familiar with the story, but lacking knowledge about all the original sources, how Ritchie handles the narrative and characters--when audiences have an expectation of certain situations and people--will prove what a talented story-teller Ritchie is. Again, forgive me, I'm sick and rather out of it, being thoroughly doped up on meds, so that's why I didn't go as in-depth as I usually do. (Since this post, another teaser has come out, and you can read the analysis for that here, at this link).
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

On a last note, landscape symbols will play a huge role in this film. When--if ever in the film--there is a nice, gentle plateau/meadow, that means that's how the characters are behaving, they themselves are balanced and even-keeled; when, as in this scene above, there is a towering cliff, that suggests that Arthur himself is on a road but he feels there is no way out of the choice he has made (the cliffs are inescapable, he has only the path before him that he can follow). Where there is water in the landscape, will of course suggest cleansing or grace; where there is a forest, as around 1:15 and we see the "woman" in the tree, that denotes sin: the multiplication of the woods is the opposite of the wood of the Cross which cleansed us of sin, so to go into the woods means you are going to commit a sin, or you are carrying a sin with you. When the trailer first opens, and we see Arthur and his gang running, they are clearly doing the opposite of that which they should be doing: instead of "running the good race," as St Paul says he has done in 2 Timothy 4-7, Arthur and his lads have been hustling in the world with no thought to God; the question is, have we done the same?

Saturday, July 23, 2016

The Blair Witch Project. I don't really know what I could compare it to, but it's rather like Evil Dead. I don't want to assume this is going to be a pro-capitalist film, but there are elements which we are used to seeing which would make it difficult to turn socialist. For example, in the very act of these kids going into the woods searching for the lost sister, they are, in essence, "conjuring her," and whether it was The Conjuring, Ouija, Evil Dead, The Huntsman: Winter's War (Frida summoning her sister Ravenna from the dead through the mirror) or the likes, we know that summoning the dead is dangerous business. Why do bound and broken twigs play such an important and creepy role in The Blair Witch Project? During His Passion, Jesus said to the weeping Daughters Of Jerusalem, If they do this to the green wood, what will they do to the dry (Luke 23:31)?" The bound sticks are the dry wood, the wood that does not have the life of God in them, and they symbolize the sins to which each member of the "search party" has bound themselves to and will not give up, so they have bound themselves to death through their own free will. This is, basically, what all good horror films are about and why the moral universe in horror films are so tight and rigid: they actually believe what they preach and they are desperate for us to believe as well.

So, I have the flu; I don't know about you, I get in a really bad mood when I am sick; Comi-Con is going on, and a multitude of trailers have been released. We'll start with the good news, and then suffer through the bad news together, eh? Good news comes in two words: Guy Ritchie.

So, what do we have?
One man, who has been chosen above others to do a great task and lead others. This is not what socialists want. We are all equals, say the socialists; no one is better than anyone else, and what one person can do, anyone can do; the story of Excalibur, who could only be drawn by one man, is not a socialist fairy tale, is it? On another level, even as Arthur fulfills his destiny, he exercises his free will. Going in, Ritchie knows every member of his audience "knows" the story of King Arthur, to a greater or lesser degree, and so he has to introduce the elements of the story we have forgotten, the elements which are relevant to us today and now. This film is going to absolutely rock (yes, that was Jude Law you saw in that trailer). In a very similar--if not total copy of--vein of Arthur is Vin Diesel's newest film that will met the same basic criteria above:

Xander Cage probably wouldn't be good as a prom date, but when it comes to doing what he does and no one else can do, he's the only one there is. This is the theme of the individual, and socialism hates the individual.Socialism embraces the mob, the herd, the horde, not the individual. Another film that will be absolutely excellent is has released the second trailer: Dr. Strange:

Why is Marvel going into all this "mysticism" and intangible worlds and things that are "real" but can't be seen? Because, again, that is the opposite of what socialism propounds. Socialists do not believe in anything you can't shake a stick at, including God or anything else which the State can't control and legislate. So, to have a Marvel film which shows multiple realities, that is a socialist nightmare. Okay, if you weren't alive in 1999, or you weren't old enough to be cognizant of what was happening in popular culture, than listen to this little story: a film came out, and the makers of this film marketed that it was real "found footage" from three would-be documentary film makers about a legendary witch, and the three disappeared; the film scared the hell out of everyone who went to see it the opening weekend; it terrified us. I didn't go in the backyard for two weeks.

Even though no one knew they were making this film, a few people have all ready seen it and said that it's a better "remake" than sequel, and I can understand that. So, it opens in September, and before it comes out, we'll do Blair Witch Project, because I actually intended to do it last year, so I have it, and then we'll compare it to the new one. Forests are interesting symbols because they stand for sin: the wood of the cross is virtue, so when you go into a tangled woods, it's the multiplication of sin and the absence of virtue (not being able to find your way out or, as the case in the film, going around in circles, is the refusal to repent of sin, or not knowing what you have to do to repent of your sin). Here is an extended, new trailer for Suicide Squad (yea, I still just don't know about this):

If you are wondering how they control the "bad guys," you see some of them getting something shot into their necks; Bruce Wayne, aka Batman, provided the government with neck injections to control the Suicide Squad, so, if they do something wrong, the explosion goes off in their neck and they die a slow, painful, gross death. I don't know how Suicide Squad is going to go, but before it comes out August 5, we are going to go deeper into things, especially the character of Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie). What we can say is, The Enchantress, who possesses Dr. June Moon (Cara Delvigne, or however she spells her name) is the main villain of Suicide Squad,... or so we were led to believe until we saw this clip:

Here is where I think the bad news begins. I hope it doesn't, but when I am sick, I'm in a bad mood all ready and the whole world is doomed. My medicine isn't working very well.

Okay, so even in my bad mood, I can't really say anything against what we see in the trailer: it's a multi-millionaire assembling a team of uniquely talented and gifted individuals to do what the rest of us can't. What has me upset is what happens in this trailer, and wait until what happens after we see the WW logo on the screen, because that is the real,....mmmm,.... that is the real,.... bad news.

What I am hoping for from the film is the date of the photograph we saw linking Batman vs Superman: Dawn Of Justice to Wonder Woman. Now, if "Guy Ritchie" was good news, "Oliver Stone" is bad news, I mean, the guy is high most of the time and doesn't even know what he believes, and when he does believe something, he's apt to drop it the next day just because, so I don't know what to make of this, and I might still not know even after I have seen the film:

Last and least, Kong: Skull Island will make you think of the Vietnam war and movies about the Vietnam war; why? Because the film makers thought it was wrong that the US fought Vietnam and stopped the spread of communism; had the US given up, the world would have become communist much faster.

Okay, so that is that, but there is a constant stream of trailers coming out,... I also wouldn't be surprised to see a trailer/teaser for Sherlock Season 4, since they did have a panel, but don't listen to me, I have to go to sleep now. What? You want to see Arthur Legend Of the Sword again? What a coincidence, so do I, so here it is!!!!!

Thursday, July 21, 2016

I was so looking forward to Star Trek: Beyond. If I had any doubts, learning that it is premiering at the White House today, with Michelle Obama as the MC, then those flash backs of her "beaming in" to the Oscars and awarding Ben Affleck the Best Picture award for Argo has only strengthened my despair that, yet another iconic American film (The Lone Ranger, The Legend Of Tarzan, etc.), has been sabotaged by liberals in their attempts to re-write American cultural history to make it appear as if Americans have always been socialist and gay. They are expecting the film to bring in around $60 million this weekend; that's interesting, because when Star Trek Into Darkness came out, they were expecting about $100 million, so when it only brought in $85, that was considered a disappointment; they have lowered their standards, probably in anticipation of knowing people aren't going to see it, and have announced plans for Star Trek 4 all ready,... Even if the film brings in only $60 million, that would still be a disappointment, even if that is what they are expecting: for the budget, the actors, and, above all, the franchise and this being Star Trek's 50th anniversary, (which is even more devastating that it's been sold out to liberalism), they should have their sights on an $80-90 million opening, but they obviously aren't over-achievers; anything then, below $60 million, is going to be a big bust. Also opening this weekend is Ice Age Collision Course, which is pro-socialist, and Dinesh D'Souza's Hillary's America: The Secret History Of the Democratic Party. It was getting only a limited release, but it has expanded; I would suggest getting your tickets ahead of time for this one.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

Monday, July 18, 2016

It's actually a classic venture capitalist scenario, like the original film, when these women are booted out of the safe-confines of academia and tenure and turn their dire circumstances into a positive benefit for themselves, and others. They are four women who have nothing but their own personal resources, and they go through the typical marketing problems of hiring help, getting a logo, slogan and channeling publicity to properly describe their market niche; they even have government competition. So, why remake Ghostbusters with an all-female leading cast? Because the original Ghostbusters was a great lesson in Entrepreneurial Skills 101, so a new generation needs to be taught the same lesson, especially women, who--ironically--have been taught by feminists that because the big bad world of business is so big and so bad, they need the government to protect them as they go out and prove they are just as good as men; Ghostbusters wants to show women that no, they don't need anyone but their own skills which pertains to their singularity as individuals. By the way, all the technical jargon you hear in the film? They went to MIT to check all the math and science, so it's all accurate and correct. On a different note, why were so many people angry about this film? Wealth re-distribution. Under the guise of "diversity," many artistic achievements are being given to minorities (like the female Thor, and black female Iron Man), and it appeared the same was happening with Ghostbusters: the original film with four men now being replaced with four women, and that is an easy angle (I know because I was certainly guilty of it myself); that's not what this is about, however. It's not about women seeing other women starting their own business in adversity, but women telling women that, just because other women are voting for a woman to become president, or are telling you that you should be a socialist, don't. Socialism doesn't help women. It never has and it never will, capitalism is what helps women to help themselves, and in turn to help the whole world become a better place, and that's what the film is about.

I am stunned as I write that Paul Feig's re-boot of Ghostbusters is a comprehensive argument against socialism in America today: it gets a bit messy at times, but it is consistent and thorough. The film lays out three cases against socialism in each of the three initial ghost sightings, and these three are instances we have visited from other films. Between class warfare, black enslavement and, yes, Satanic influence, Ghostbusters puts it all out there so we know about the ghosts from our past.

The top image is the real Aldridge mansion in Boston, the middle image is Gertrude Aldridge as she was in life, and then what she turns into in the bottom image. (We'll discuss the blue color around her below). Let's talk about the tour guide Zach. He informs the people on the tour that the house had every luxury available at the time, including an "anti-Irish fence." Why on earth would that be included? It's obviously ridiculous that a fence could keep out just people who come from Ireland or have Irish ancestry, and yet this is what people who are pro-amnesty think people who want a fence/wall built between the US and Mexico are saying: we want a fence to keep out Mexicans. It's not about keeping out Mexicans, it's about keeping out everyone who wants to enter this country without a proper background check to insure they aren't terrorists are trying to commit evil and foul deeds in this country. Then the tour guide talks about how Mr. Aldridge locked Gertrude in the basement and wouldn't let her out. This is a reference to a feminists complaint in academia referred to as "The Madwoman In the Attic" syndrome (which is also the title of a feminist work of literary criticism; no, it doesn't matter that Gertrude was locked up in the basement instead of the attic, because the basement is still considered a "marginalized" area of the house that isn't a livable area like the rest of the home). So Gertrude stands as a woman who has been wronged, even as she has been accused of murdering the servants (meaning, Mr. Aldridge murdered the servants but blamed Gertrude and then locked her up so she couldn't prove her innocence, because that's what terrible men do to women, or Gertrude had some kind of condition and, rather than understanding what she had, they condemned her to being locked away from society forever). So, this story of Gertrude (minus the slaughtering of the servants) is exactly what feminists today would cling onto as a "ghost from the past" of female oppression. The tour guide, Zach, is also a sign of bad capitalism when we later see him pick up the trick candlestick that he used for a haunting effect while on the tour guide (we see similar tricks employed in the trailer for Ouija: Origin of Evil, so there is fraudulence and deception). What happens next is something we should be expecting: Zach the white male tour guide gets locked up in the basement and nearly dies; why? Because he's a white heterosexual male (we don't have any reason to believe he is gay). We have seen countless white men be condemned for being the "power holders" in American society (please see Valak: The Conjuring 2 and the Demonizing Of White Menfor more). So, you can imagine that, as I am sitting there and watching all of this, I am confident it's going to be a pro-socialist film, not a film which is going to, instead, posit that socialism is the very cause of these hauntings and the ruin of the country.

The opening scene and first "haunting" takes place at the Aldridge Mansion: this sets us up to expect a really heavy anti-capitalist argument: it was built with every avaiable luxury at the time and was incredibly expensive and lavish; but the title of the book written by two of the heroines, Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) and Abbey Yates (Melissa McCarthy), Ghosts From Our Past: Both Literally and Figuratively, means that is what the film will present us with, and--just like the villain Rowan North (Neil Casey)--those past ghosts will be used against us. The mansion tour guide (Zach Woods) describes how the daughter of the owner, Gertrude Aldridge, murdered all the servants one night by stabbing them to death. Again, this would look to be an obvious case of anti-capitalism, however, this is a ghost from the past, and the film that perfectly demonstrates this is The Legend Of Tarzan.

Each of the women are highly individual, and yet, they are similar enough that women can find one of them with which to identify. Abbey is like the stay-at-home mom who is great at a particular field of interest but maybe hasn't really made something of it yet; Patty is like women who work a regular, boring 9-5 job while Erin is the woman trying to get ahead in academia. Holtzmann,... is that woman who doesn't really fit in anywhere. What we have are four women who take what they love and are interested in and decide to make a living out of it. It also saves New York City and the world from total destruction, and that's an important point, because when we do what we love, we are keeping the evil--and I do mean, "evil"--forces of socialism away; how? When we love someone or something, we are willing to sacrifice for it, and each one has sacrificed something in order to pursue the lead they have in paranormal investigation. What we haven't seen in any other film that I can recall is, at the end, Holtzmann makes a toast and reveals how, because of this tiny company, she not only has friends, but a family. Not all of us are lucky enough to say that about our co-workers, but it's wonderful for those who do, and that's a reason not to abandon a system that allows for so much freedom and flexibility.
On a different note, why does Abbey have such a difficult time with her wanton soup? It's Chinese food. As Abbey says at the end, "All I want is balance," she doesn't want too many, but she also doesn't want a container with one wanton either. The Chinese being communists don't have balance and they certainly don't have customer service; wondering why Abbey doesn't order from another place? Because in communism, you don't have a choice and there is no one to complain to about anything.
On still a different note, the reason why Erin was haunted by the mean old woman who lived across the street for a year is because Erin never did or said anything nice to her. Like Dorothy in The Wizard Of Oz hating Miss Gulch, kids don't make an effort to do or say nice things to mean old people. Erin could have done something to help the old woman be nicer, but didn't, and the old woman standing at the foot of Erin's bed for a year is a sign of how easy it would have been; think of how Erin approached the ghost of Gertrude Aldridge and was speaking to her; that's what Erin should have done with her neighbor. Remember, Erin and Abbey became friends during the time of this apparition appearing to Erin, and when Erin and Abbey come out of the dimension warp (I have no idea what to call that thing Abbey gets sucked into when Rowan-as-the-logo grabs her and takes her in with him) with snow white hair, it's to remind us of the mean old lady story (old ladies have white hair). Erin did for her friend Abbey what she should have done for the mean old lady across the street but didn't. Erin was probably too young to understand, but Abbey was there for Erin during that time, so it was time for Erin to be there for Abby.

In the newest version of Tarzan, Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) is the architect of a devastating plan to enslave nearly the entire Congo for work on the railroad for the King of Belgium. Undoubtedly, things like this happened in the Victorian Age, that's why we can call it "the Victorian Age" because there are well-defined values, cultural beliefs and attitudes which characterize the people of that time; that doesn't mean they are shared with the values of today. Just as Americans of today can't be held responsible for Leon Rom's actions and atrocities, neither can the country be held accountable for the (fictitious) murders committed by Gertrude Aldridge. The next case, however, is even more compelling.

One of my favorite parts of the film is when Patty (top image) has become a Ghostbuster and is running, saying, I should go back to the subway, it wasn't a perfect job, but it was a good job. We could say that Patty is meant to bust the "sloth" interpretation we see at the DMV in Zootopia, because she is certainly nothing like that. Why is it that her Uncle Bill (played by original Ghostbuster star Ernie Hudson) owns a funeral parlor? Because Uncle Bill has "put the ghosts to rest," so to speak, and "buried the hatchet," to continue "so to speaking." In the original Ghostbusters (1984) Winston wanted a job with a steady paycheck; in the new Ghostbusters, Patty wants a good job, not a perfect job, but a job where she can help and put all that non-fiction she's read to good use. When Uncle Bill shows up at the end wanting his hearse back, he complains that he has two funerals that weekend; why? He's thinking of customer service. Patty's also thinking of customer service and how she and the Ghostbusters are going to save NYC from future threats without a vehicle. So both Patty and Bill are thinking of how they can help and do for others, not how others can help them or do for them, and this is the key, not only to happiness for us all, but also success. Now, why are some of the ghosts depicted in blue light? Blue, as we know, is the color of sadness and depression; it is also linked with wisdom, because the greatest human treasure is wisdom, because it costs suffering and sadness in order to acquire. The ghosts we see in blue are those who are sad and depressed, but who never acquired wisdom, because--like the socialists today--they want someone to pay for what they have suffered (like Rowan wanting others to pay for him having been bullied and not good at anything).

Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones) works for the New York City subway; she makes polite small talk to people passing her, but they don't acknowledge her; when a mysterious man appears at her ticket booth and tells her, "When the Fourth Apocalypse comes, laborers like you will be the last to be led to the slaughter," she can tell he's a nut. He walks around the corner, and--that being where he shouldn't be--Patty follows him and sees a ghost wearing convict's clothes. Frankly, this is an incredible way of reminding audiences about the "underground railway" (the subway) run by Harriet Tubman (Patty) for escaping slaves (the convict, because it was against the law for slaves to runaway from their masters). Please, bear with me for just a moment and, like the film, I will pull this all together into a comprehensive plan. The third ghost sighting is,...

This is not a good image, and I do apologize, it's not nearly as menacing as it was in the film. This creature is clearly a demonic dragon. Why does it appear at a rock concert for a band called The Beast Makers? Because it's invoking The Beast, as in, Satan. Not all rock music is satanic, but this rock band is clearly using their music to summon The Beast and the audience loves it; why do we have this scene? How many musicians are using their music to support the liberal cause? Because people listen to their music, they are using their celebrity influence to urge their fans to support the liberal agenda that Satan himself could have written? Why are they called "The Beast Makers?" Even if the devil doesn't exist, the left is willing to create "The Beast" for its followers to worship in place of God; why? As we have noted countless times, liberals don't believe in God (part of their platform) and so they want people to believe that we are animals--not created in God's image with a soul--but animals who live and die, eat and exist to serve the state. So the band "The Beast Makers" not only intend to make a Beast for their followers to worship--like the Golden Calk Aaron made for the Israelites in the desert--but also to make their followers into beats, because that's what liberals want us to believe: we are animals. Something imperative happens in this scene, and it's something that made me think it was going to absolutely be a liberal film--and I think kept a lot of people from going to see it, but made liberals go see it--and that is Patty (second image above). Abbey (McCarthy) jumps into the audience and they "carry her" to where the demon is so she can zap it; Patty is going to follow, but when she jumps, no one catches her; she gets up and says, "I don't know if that's a woman thing or a race thing," and as she's walking, the demon perches on her shoulders. How often have we heard about sexism and racism in America? When we see this demon perch on her, the film makers are telling us that the kind of act Patty has just made (just the act, not Patty herself) is satanic. She has blamed something on someone else, rather than taking charge of herself and walking on her own to where the demon was, she blames others for her bad decision. Would you jump into a crowd of strangers and trust them to catch you? Especially if they were heavy metal rock fans dressed in,... well, you know how they dress at concerts. Would you? We know the head--the area that the demonic dragon is over Patty--symbolizes the thoughts and thought processes of a character while the shoulders symbolize the burdens. The image in the middle above, then, communicates that those "shouldering their burdens" of racial/sexual discrimination are being brainwashed by satanic influences into what is causing those burdens; we all have burdens in life, and we can either let the devil sit on our shoulders and blame others, or we can accept the Cross and use our burdens to free ourselves and others. As discussed above, there are two primary colors used in the film denoting the supernatural: blue and green. Green, as we know, has a positive meaning and a negative meaning: the positive is a sign of rebirth and hope, while the negative is a sign that something has gone rotten (like food in the fridge you have forgotten about). The green demon, and the green "cloud" swallowing New York City in the bottom image reveals that the evil forces circling the home of Wall Street and the world's financial capitol are rotten.

...at a heavy metal band concert for a group called The Beast Makers who have Ozzy Osbourne as their front man (yea, Ozzy the "Prince of Darkness," from Black Sabbath who bit the head off the bat and other animals). The green beast which is unleashed is meant to be THE BEAST of the Apocalypse, like the character Apocalypse from X-Men Apocalypse and the Four Horsemen from Now You See Me and the sequel. Why do this? Because these three sightings are the foundation of the plan of the liberal party to destroy the county, just like Rowan North wants to destroy the world in the film. And the book Ghosts From Our Pasts is the "playbook" being used.

I couldn't find an image of the film's villain, Rowan North (Neil Casey), but these are two of the forms he takes after he has electrocuted himself. Why does he posses Kevin (Hemsworth)? Because he is a white male. Yes, North was also a white male, but not a white male who was noticed. When Rowan refers to Kevin as an "upgrade," it's not just the better physique he's acquired (through theft, Rowan didn't want to do the work to build up his own body when he was alive, but he's perfectly happy to "take" and "possess" (like a house) the body of someone else) Rowan is also talking about a job promotion, up from a janitor at the hotel to a receptionist at a business. Rowan is a common bully, and like so many others, he has turned to socialism so he can "legitimately" bully those he believes has bullied him. Further, Rowan North makes Kevin do things he normally wouldn't do, which makes the destruction in NYC look like Kevin--a white heterosexual male--did it. Why, after abandoning Kevin's body, does Rowan choose the company's logo? Because it's the company's logo, and this is the specter of socialism (yes, just like the Bond film Spectre, because Rowan is a bully who commits all this evil just to get back at those he thinks hurt him). Socialism hates privately owned business, so by destroying the city, Rowan makes business look like the ones who destroyed NYC, especially a business made up of four women who went out on their own and risked everything they had to do it. Please note, however, that there is a small detail Rowan added of his own: the red bow tie which isn't a part of the company's logo. We know that red is the color of blood, because we either love something/someone so much, we will spill our red blood to save it, or we hate something/someone so much, we will spill their red blood to avenge our wrath; Rowan is obviously wrathful against NYC, and so, because the neck symbolizes that by which we are led in life, Rowan is being led by his anger to do this, no greater altruistic statement or purpose, just anger, even though the bow tie makes him look more civilized as he does it. Lastly, the name "Rowan North" might have different meanings, but it sounds like "rowing north," as to Canada, or the Nordic countries, where there is socialism.

The first "ghost from the past," is Gertrude Aldridge who murdered the servants decades ago. None of us are responsible for what Gertrude did, but the liberals are using this "ghost from the past" to justify overthrowing capitalism now. None of us alive today are responsible for slavery or for the misery the slaves had to endure while enslaved, but liberals are using that "ghost from the past" today to justify the terrorism being committed by "Black Lives Matter," and demand "reparations." This is difficult to quantify, but it's likely that most Americans don't believe in the devil, Satan or hell, at least not the way Americans did as early as the 1950's, but The Beast is being resurrected now to help the liberals break down barriers between sin and virtue (drug legalization, for example, and the self-destruction it brings), between right and wrong (the profound corruption and lying being spread in government and the lack of justice in the Obama Administration), good and evil (abortion, promiscuity, adultery and gay "marriage" being celebrated by the liberals). This is important because it validates another recent liberal film we saw: Independence Day.

Kevin the receptionist is a much more complex character than critics are noting. For example, when he applies for the job and Erin is obviously very attracted to him and checking him out, feminists would be outraged if such a thing happened when a woman applied for the job and a possible male boss was checking her out. Ghostbusters seems to say, and rightfully, that women are attracted to men, too, just as men are attracted to women; so we can't complain when men do it to women, because women do it to men, too. Why is Kevin such a terrible receptionist? He just is, but what is more important is, after Rowan decides he doesn't want Kevin's body anymore, Abbey yells, that they need to get their receptionist back, so in spite of Kevin's horrible performance, they aren't going to let anyone treat their receptionist poorly. Given that he has been so terrible, it would be easy for them to let Rowan toss Kevin to the side and the Ghostbusters not care what happened to him, but he is a person, and he is more than just the skills he has (or, in his case, doesn't have) or what he does (or doesn't do) for the company. For all his "lackings" he is a part of the family they have created and they are going to keep him.

There are three films which we can link to liberals calling upon Satan to help them defeat conservative Christian Americans (yes, you read that correctly, that is exactly what I meant to say): Independence Day, The Witch and The Legend Of Tarzan. In Tarzan, Tarzan is likened to a spirit in the trees; when he has stolen a handkerchief from Jane (Margot Robbie), she calls out, "My father is a professor, I don't believe in spirits," which translates, I don't believe in the Holy Spirit; given the terrible depiction of Christianity in the film (yes, all Christians are meant by those accusations) we can say with confidence that the film condemns Christianity. In The Witch, the young girl Thomasin signs away her soul so she can belong to the devil's commune, and in Independence Day, a symbol borrowed from a film called Devil's Due stands in for a "friendly" alien who wants to save humanity from the aliens invading (please see A Controlled Dive: Independence Day for more). On the other side, films such as Warcraft, Devil's Due and John Carter link liberals and socialism directly to Satanism. And now, there is another film linking socialists and liberals to Satan.

Andy Garcia portrays the mayor of New York City, and if the way the mayor behaves doesn't convince you that this is an anti-socialist film, I can't imagine what will. He wants the government to do what is obviously better being managed by the private sector, i.e., the Ghostbusters, and doesn't want to give them credit. Likewise, when they have saved the concert hall from possession, he starts defaming them because they are drawing attention to the problem which he hopes he can keep covered up. Lastly, in addition to the lies he tells (or has other tell on his behalf) like the Obama administration blaming terrorism on global warming, so the mayor tries to blame the destruction in NYC also on global warming, denying what everyone saw with their own eyes. Now it's important to remember that initially Abbey's logo idea for the company is, "If you see something, say something," which Erin points out is the logo for terrorism. That the Ghostbusters are an anti-terrorist group, in NYC, fighting the socialist ghosts from our past, is truly a war on terrorism the film does a great job of bringing out.

In conclusion, it's shocking, it's surprising, but it's refreshing: a film that could have, even should have been pro-socialist, could not have been more pro-capitalist. That's encouragement, ladies and gentlemen, that the left doesn't have the hold on the country and the media that they would like us to think they do, so take heart, and even if you don't see the film, know that the plans for the sequel are all ready happening and it's one we can look forward to, rather than dreading. In spite of global socialism resurrecting ghosts from our past to use against us today, we have learned the lessons from history, and we won't be overcome.
Eat Your Art Out,
The Fine Art Diner

All the ghosts Rowan wants to release are violent and vengeful; coincidence? I think not. Since he's been in office, Obama has released more than 6,000 prisoners and we see the chaos Rowan intends the malevolent ghosts to perform on his behalf to be a bully to the living.

About Me

This blog is dedicated to the glory of Jesus Christ.
Email thoughts and comments to thefineartdiner@gmail.com.
Please note: there is never just one correct interpretation, and I know that, I just rarely mention it nowadays; please do not think that, just because I have chosen to post one interpretation over another, doesn't mean that I think my interpretation is exclusively correct or other positions not possible. I would also like to point out that, we are living in a very defined, volatile culture with dynamic politics at play on the international stage and, whether you like to admit it or not, those elements go into the creation of art, which is why I include the political elements in my interpretations.
Thank you, have a nice day.